22 June 2017, by Taylor King Family Law Solicitors
In dividing the assets on divorce, those acquired during the marriage are shared equally unless there is a good reason for departure. This is called the sharing principle.
In the case of Gray v Work, Mr Work the husband, sought a larger share of the assets on the basis of the amount of wealth he had generated during the marriage. he asked the court that this wealth should be generated as a “special contribution”. The husband sought 61% of the assets on the basis that he had generated 225 million dollars.
The court of appeal confirmed the following, if there was to be a departure from equality;
- The contribution had to be wholly exceptional, so that it would be inconsistent with the objective of achieving fairness.
- Exceptional earning were a relevant factor
- The disparity in contributions was relevant to the welfare of the family.
- There is no discrimination against the homemaker.
- The special contribution must be unmatched by the other party.
- The amount of wealth may be so extraordinary as to be exceptional.
- There is no threshold.
The husband’s appeal against an equal share of the assets was dismissed. This case shows how difficult it is to argue a departure from equality in relation to assets acquired during the marriage.
If you would like to find out more information about the issues raised above, please contact Susan Taylor. 0161 883 0460 or email email@example.com
19 September 2014, by Taylor King Family Law Solicitors
If you think that separating couples only argue about children and money, the Blue Cross charity in a recent survey stated that one in four divorcing couples argued over the ownership of their pets when they separated. Dogs and cats were identified as the most fought over pets followed by horses, rabbits and guinea pigs.
As a result of that survey the Blue Cross charity has launched a pet-nup, a pre-nuptial agreement for pet owners. This document sets out who will keep the pet in the event of a divorce or relationship breakdown, how much time the non resident owner and other issues including check ups at the vet and arrangements when the owners are on holiday.
The rehoming manager of Blue Cross stated that it was a good idea to agree the future of family pets in advance to make a difficult situation easier.
20 February 2014, by Taylor King Family Law Solicitors
The Law Commission for England and Wales has just published its report on Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements. The report recommends the introduction of binding nuptial agreements, to be known as qualifying nuptial agreements (QNA).
QNAs can include the increasingly popular pre-nuptial agreement and the less common post-nuptial agreement. Both intend to regulate the financial consequences of separation and divorce (or dissolution of a civil partnership) before such event has occurred.
Read more →
20 January 2014, by Taylor King Family Law Solicitors
Under the present law in England and Wales prenuptial agreements are not binding on divorce courts. Since the judgment in Radmacher v Granatino in 2010 the courts have started to take prenuptial agreements into account in deciding financial orders. The courts are increasingly upholding prenuptial agreements provided that they are fair. This article explores how they are being treated. Read more →
17 April 2013, by Taylor King Family Law Solicitors
The court in deciding what financial order should be made in divorce proceedings will taken into account any separation agreement that the parties entered into prior to the divorce. The onus is upon the party seeking to depart from the agreement to convince the court that he/she has reasonable grounds to do so.
The case of T v T  EWHC B3 (Fam) involved an application by a husband to show cause why a separation agreement he entered into with his wife should not be made into an order of the court.
The separation agreement was signed on 26th June 1991. It recorded that each party had taken separate and independent legal advice and had made full financial disclosure. It had been signed by both parties and conformed to all the requirements of a concluded financial agreement, including provision for a clean break. It had however never been put before the court for approval to be made into a consent order. The husband stated that he expected his solicitors to have done so and always regarded the matter as resolved. There had been no reconciliation and the agreement was relied upon in order to effect the independent lives that were currently being led by each party.
The wife applied for a financial remedy and wanted a full trial. She argued that there had been material non disclosure and had been under pressure from her husband and was bullied by her solicitor at the time of entering into the agreement. She also stated that the husband had deliberately not ensured that the agreement was made into a court order so that he could preserve his position and make a later application to the court.
Parker J found that the evidence did not support the wife’s arguments and both parties had been under pressure to bring matters to a conclusion for different reasons. There was also nothing to suggest that at the time the agreement was not fair and the wife had not been properly advised. The Judge asked herself: (i) had the parties reached an accord by which they intended to resolve the matrimonial affairs, and (ii) how have they conducted themselves. She held that there was no doubt that each party intended to resolve their financial affairs at the date of the agreement in 1991 and the wife, in reality, had been prepared to rely on the agreement. She simply saw it as the duty of the husband to support her because she was currently in a worse financial position that she had contemplated in 1991.
Parker J also held that it was an agreement which was entered into, intended to be acted upon and acted upon. The parties relied on it and gained peace of mind from it for over 20 years. In those circumstances the existence of the agreement must be regarded of magnetic importance. The overriding factor was the agreement and the importance that each party placed on it.
The husband’s application was therefore granted and an order incorporating the separation agreement was made, with costs against the wife.
Taylor King often acts on behalf of clients who want to draw up a separation agreement. We advise clients that they must make full disclosure of their financial situation and that their spouse should seek independent legal advice from a specialist family lawyer who should certify that they have provided such advice.